KING. 
then William the Conqueror. In the time 
of James I., both stocks were united; and, 
by the abdication of James II., the com- 
mon stock is the Princess Sophia, and the 
heirs of her body, being Protestant mem- 
bers of the Church of England, and married 
to such as are Protestants. This is there- 
fore an hereditary monarchy, duly consti- 
tuted between the extremes of divine here- 
ditary, indefeasible right, and elective suc- 
cession. 
With respect to the royal family, the first 
branch considei ed in the law is the Queen, 
as to whom, see title Queen. 
The Prince of Wales, or heir-apparent 
to the crown, and also his royal consort ; 
and the Princess Royal, or eldest daughter 
of the King, are likewise peculiarly regarded 
by the laws. For, by statute 25 Edw. III. 
to compass or conspire the death of the for- 
mer, or to violate the chastity of the latter, 
is as much high treason as to conspire the 
death of the king, or violate the chastity 
of the queen, See Treason. 
The heir-apparent to the crown is usually 
made Prince of Wales and Earl of Ches- 
ter by special creation and investiture ; but 
being the king’s eldest son, he is, by inhe- 
ritance, Duke of Cornwall, without any 
new creation. 
The observations in Coke’s Reports, how- 
ever, as welt as the words of the statute, it 
has been remarked, limit the dukedom of 
Cornwall to the first begotten (rather first 
born) son of a King of England, and to 
him only. But although from this it is 
manifest that a Duke of Cornwall must be 
the first begotten son of a king, yet it is 
not necessary that he should be born after 
his father’s accession to the throne. The 
younger sons and daughters of the King and 
other branches of the royal family, were 
little regarded by the ancient law, except 
with regard to their state and precedence, 
which was directed by statute 31 Hen. VIII. 
c. 10; and it was agreed by all the judges, 
in 1718, that the care and approbation of 
the marriages are of the King’s grand-chil- 
dren, as well as of the presumptive heir to 
the crown, belonged to the King, their 
grand father. And now, by statute Geo. III. 
c. 1 1, no descendant of the body of King 
George II. (other than the issue of prin- 
cesses married into foreign countries) is 
capablp of contracting matrimony, without 
the previous consent of the King signified 
under the Great Seal; and any marriage 
contracted without such consent, is void 
(a marriage accordingly, which had, in fact, 
taken place abroad against the provisions 
of this act, between one of the sons of 
George HI. and an English lady, was dis- 
solved in 1794, by sentence of the Ecclesi- 
astical Court here) ; but it is provided by 
the act, that such of the said descendants as 
are above the age of twenty-five, may, 
after a twelve-month’s notice given to the 
King’s Privy Council, contract and solem- 
nize marriage without the consent of the 
crown, unless both Houses of Parliament 
shall, before the expiration of the said year, 
expressly declare their disapprobation of 
such intended marriage. All persons so- 
lemnizing, assisting, or being present at any 
such prohibited marriage, shall incur the 
penalties of prsemunire. 
To assist the King in the discharge of 
his duties and maintenance of his dignity, 
and exercise of his prerogative, he has se- 
veral counsels, as the Parliament, his 
Peers, and his Privy Council, which 
see. 
For law matter the judges are his coun- 
cil, as appears by statute 14 Edward III. 
c. 5, and elsewhere ; and therefore when the 
King’s Council is mentioned, it must be 
understood secundum subjectam materiam, 
as where a statute enacts a fine at the 
King’s pleasure, it means the discretion of 
his judges. 
It is in consideration of the duties incum- 
bent on the King by, our constitution, that 
his dignity and prerogative are established 
by the laws of the land ; it being a maxim 
in the law, that protection and subjection 
are reciprocal. And these reciprocal du- 
ties are most probably what was meant by 
the convention parliament in 1688 ; when 
they declared that King James II. had 
broken the original contract between king 
and people. But, however, as the terms of 
that original contract were in some mea- 
sure disputed, being alleged to exist prin- 
cipally in tlieory, and to be only dednceable 
by reason and the rules of natural law ; in 
which deduction, different understandings 
might very considerably differ ; it was, af- 
ter the revolution, judged proper to declare 
these duties expressly, and to reduce that 
contract to a plain certainty. So that 
whatever doubts might be formerly raised 
about the existence of such an original con- 
tract, they must now entirely cease ; espe- 
cially with regard to every prince who hath 
reigned since the year 1688. 
The principal duty of the King is to go- 
vern his people according to law. And this 
is not only consonant to the principles of 
